tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN August 31, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
for folks that don't follow this every single day, when a rate raise comes, who is the first person to be impacted. is what industries are impacted first? where will they see it? >> it would be that the short-term rate could impact things, mortgage rates, perhaps auto car loan rates. it may impact the dollar which will hurt some of the big exporting industries. it should bring more money into the united states, people looking for higher returns on their investment. that would push up the dollar. some of the big exporters like caterpillar and other, general motors, some other companies export goods. they may face, a higher dollar makes our goods more expensive overseas. that's an impact. on mortgage rates, people may
pay a slightly higher rate on their homes. that will take time. it is likely it may not have as much effect as people fear. there are other factors that would likely keep mortgage rates in check. when we survey the economists, they expected the fed to move by september or december at the latest. they predicted the mortgage rates would increase maybe a half point by the middle of next year. >> and some of the other findings, economic growth to remain by low 3% through 2017 is the expectation. wage increases to remain below 3.5% annual average and many expect hiring to fall to 175,000 a month, which would be down from recent years. >> right. so, right. those are some of the more where people are expecting more moderate but not gang busters growth. there has been this hope where the long run average for the u.s. economy is about 3% annual
growth. we haven't had that since the recession. on jobs, we have been getting fairly decent, average, about 240 jobs per month for the last year. as the unemployment rate comes down and if growth remains modest, that's something that would likely slow. some of what we are seeing is sort of picking up the slack, soaking up some of the unemployed. as those numbers come down, the expectation is hiring would slow as well. first, we have the "associated press." we'll go back to the phones. reginald is waiting in houston, texas. good morning. >> go ahead, reginald. >> good morning. i was just wondering, china has been buying a lot of the u.s. treasury notes. if china defaults in her economy and she calls in some of these treasury notes, will we be able to sustain and be able to pay on
those treasury notes that she has been buying? also, social security, we've been borrowing a lot of money from social security. we owe them a lot in treasury notes. if we ever decided to fund social security at its fullest off of what we borrowed from it and at the same time, be able to pay back china, how would that impact our economy if they called through those notes that they owe from buying over the decades from the u.s. treasury note? could we make do on that or would we go under? >> well, i think the chances of all of that happening at the same time hopefully are pretty small. china has a huge amount of reserves. that's what they have used to buy all those treasury notes and bonds. even as our economy worsens, they are not running deficits. they are not running the debt that we have done.
when they own treasury bonds of ours, they are getting interest payments from us. that will probably help them provide some foundation. what people are talking about in china is a slower rate of growth. they grew so fast for so long. a lot of people, they had a big impact on the world economy, bringing in oil and a lot of economies, which helped a lot of developing companies in brazil and australia. now, that people see their growth slowing from 10% a year down to 7% and lower. it is something that might slow growth overseas. i don't think it will have too much of an impact on our finances. that's a good thing. >> manassas, virginia, is up next where sam is waiting. you are on with chris rugaber. >> caller: good morning. i would like to make a statement and then i would like to ask a question. the statement is the reason the
federal reserve doesn't raise interest rates is the interest on the national debt will go to almost $1 trillion in a few years. don't you think we should discuss -- i don't know. nobody ever talks about this. we are $500 billion over budget again this year. how long do you think we can go on doing this? the cbo says we are going top almost $1 trillion in a few years in interest when they raise the interest. the question is, we will collapse economically. no doubt about it. what is your opinion on the interest? don't you agree the federal reserve doesn't raise interest rates because the interest on the debt will go up? that's the real reason. i'll listen to your comments. >> a couple questions there. >> well, thank you. >> that's right. it is absolutely true as interest rates go up, that is
going to hit the interest payments, raise interest payments that the government or the tax payers are paying on the nationalle de national debt. the congressional budget put out a report last week showing how the government and tax payers are paying a small amount of interest on all this debt, because interest rates are solo. as rates rise in the coming years, it is very likely to raise those interest payments. that's definitely an issue. some of that is not just fed but market forces. a lot of people still buy treasury bonds. the previous caller mentioned china. a lot of countries buy treasury bonds to keep their currency lower in value. they want to invest in dollars. it is a relatively safe place to go. every time there is global, international, financial turmoil. some money flows to refreshry bon treasury bonds.
it is not all the fed. as they raise rates, right, we will pay more on interest and that will be a challenge. i don't think it will bring about some kind of collapse but it will make it harder to bring down the deficit in the coming years. that's probably true. >> you mentioned the cdo releases that came out in the past week. here are some charts from the cdo that viewers might find interesting. feder federal debt held by the public. this is the current federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gdp approaching 80% at this point. also, a chart on total deficits. you can see where we are today in deficits, a tad right on the average deficit line across all the years.
>> the deficit has come down for the past few years. there has been some improvement. although, the cbo is forecasting that that improvement will turn around in the coming years. again, things like social security and medicare payments will rise and other health care costs. that will drive up the deficit. >> can we see those predictions expanding on the chart in the future years? >> right, right. some of this is ten-year projections rarely turn out to be true. it is hard to know what is going to happen ten years from now. the laws can change and that can help change this path we are on. some economists would argue that, with interest rates as low as they have been, it is not the worst thing in the world for the u.s. to borrow many households or businesses would want to borrow as a low interest rate. eventually, yes, you do have to pay it back. >> let's go to bob waiting in boulder, colorado. you are on with chris rugaber. >> caller: good morning. there is one slooolution i haver
this ailing economy. it comes from the economies that are doing pretty well in europe. all we need to do is legalize prostitution and marijuana and everything will be fine. >> that's bob's suggestion from boulder, colorado. >> let's go to dolly in schenectady, new york. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the things that you mentioned was the retirees which are making as i read $10,000 a day. that's a strong force and still work and help support the economy. not only that. they will be feeding the economy as we age more.
your outlook is staggering. when we talk about the deficit which is going down and down and down, i think i remember ronald reagan running on deficit fuels the economy. i think we are kind of in a conundrum here. what might be a good thing for our country as the interest rates are low is some kind of infrastructure funding, where we fund bridges and roads and help those kind of systems within our country which would put many people back to work, many, many. i thank you for letting me comment. >> christopher rugaber? >> i wouldn't say any baby boomers or anybody retiring was usele useless. it is true the aging society is creating other jobs in home health care and other areas. >> the dim outlook is for the
a.p. survey of 30 some economists. this is your personal opinion on th this. >> some of it is inevitable that growth slows as the population growth slows. it doesn't suggest anything about any particular group. >> as far as the comment on infrastructure, this breaks down along party lines. you will see democrats that are pushing more for that kind of infrastructure spending, because interest rates are low. there is certainly that view out there. of course, with gridlock in washington, not a lot of it has happened recently. some do support that. >> wild and dwoewonderful tweet. here's a thought. no one knows why the economy isn't bouncing back or does know and don't want to tell us. give us a call like darryl did in dallas, texas. >> caller: my question is this.
this is very strange. i get a confirmation that a bill has been paid. i call the company and say, well, the bill isn't supposed to be paid until the 1st. so why are you drawing the money out? in fact, how are you drawing money out when i don't have any money in that account? it is not the first of the month. right then and there, it made me kind of open my eyes and say, lord, have mercy. they are not only getting paid it being pre-paid. they are also collecting the money early. how can they collect money early when the bank doesn't even have the money in there? darryl, are you saying you have lost confidence in sort of the fairness of the markets. >> caller: yeah. that right there draws attention to the fact that they are the
getting money early from our account. if they are getting money early from our accounts, i don't consider that payment. i consider that a loan. >> chris rugaber, any thoughts? >> i don't know what kind of company we are talking about. that is something that's part of the new technology involved with payment is something that takes time for people to get used to, i think. >> on twitter, another question on twitter. this may be looking ahead to the jobs report this week. what is the greatest growth economy? what jobs should we be applying for? >> there are a lot of growing jobs out there actually. some you have seen a little bit of a bifurcation. some are lower paids in retail or restaurants. there are higher paying jobs. you are seeing a lot of demand
for people in pretty much any kind of information technology field. so what is big data, people who can analyze data use some of the big databases that are increasingly being collected by many companies and organizations. you have cybersecurity, a big place. demand in all these companies and government agencies that are being hacked. more and more need people proficient in cybersecurity. softwear is seeping into more and more jobs. for those who can get some kind of coding experience, that's a big benefit in the job market today. >> rick, you are on with christopher rugaber. >> caller: i was curious what you thought if we were to reenact the tax cuts that bush enacted when he got in office
for all his cronies. earlier this year, the republicans like to tout they are fiscally responsible. they want to pay for things as they cut things. if they are going to enact something, they need to pay for it somewhere else. they gave a $264 billion tax cut to 30 families, 3-0, in the united states early krer this year. they didn't offset that with anything. they are so fiscally responsible that they are just giving away the house every time they get power. every time they have got a chance to do something good for the country, they just throw it away on their own little pet projects and their own personal friends and the like. one other thing about, i keep hearing from texas that they have the highest -- the lowest unemployment rate going because they keep creating jobs. i guarantee you, all these jobs are low-paying jobs.
they may be reducing unemployment but you still have to work two or three jobs in that state in order to make a living wage. i would just like to hear your comments. thank you very much. >> christopher rugaber? >> you see some proposals from the republican candidates. i don't know that right now the tax burden overall is relatively in line with historical norms. some economists would see that as something that would help boos t boost growth. you see this about regulation and the need to reduce government regulation. sometimes it works and sometimes less so. >> the employment situation in
texas. she wants to know where the growth is in texas. >> some of the jobs in texas are higher paying. you have seen the oil and gas boom be a big factor, somewhat of a factor in texas recently. those are well-paying jobs. texas is an example of also population shifts. a lot of people move to texas in recent years. when more people come in, more people can help the economy grow. you see more need for more roads and schools and infrastructure, more home building. that's also been a factor in texas' economy doing well. they also have i.t. in places like austin, information technology. that's helped as well. so it's been multiple sources of growth there. >> a few more tweets. edwin christian, as long as big banks and businesses control the money, the economic outlook will be dim. sea of tranquility has a question. what do you think is the key indicator or combination that measures the temperature of the economy?
>> the key measure, a couple different once, the most broad one that people look at is gdp, gross domestic product, the government's attempt to measure everything in the economy. there is so much that goes in. it gets revised a lot, sometimes backwards looking. recently, the government came out with a measure that combines gdp with something called gdi or gross domestic income. it is measuring the economy through income rather than spending. it is how gdp works. the average of those two measures can present a pretty good picture of where the economy is going. that has been lower recently. it was higher in previous years, higher than gdp its sechlt.
jobs and the employment rate are the key indicator. >> let's go to millageville, georgia, where matthew is waiting. good morning. you are on with christopher rugaber. >> caller: i have a question about the federal reserve. maybe you guys can tell us. how come we can't know who constitutes the federal reserve, who the banks are? they are the ones that manipulate our money. they affect our lives but we can't know who they are. why don't we just say the private banking cartel instead of the feds. i have another question. we bailed out these people for trillions of dollars. at the same time we were paling them out, they were paying their executives excessive amounts of bonuses. why don't you all tell us a little more about money, which is what all of us get up, go to school to make money? we don't know what money is about. why is it that the government prints money and a private
banking cartel gets to loan it to us? you loan the paper to us at high interest rates and we end up spending our lives paying back for paper. why don't you explain those things to us. c-span, can you get some people to come on your station, on your channel and tell us something about money, what money really is about and stop giving us a bunch of b.s. that really doesn't make any sense. tell us what really is going on. we can never pay off the debt. isn't it true that we can never pay off the debt, because we create money out of thin air. we are living on debt. i'll stop there. tell us a little bit more about our money system. >> we try to give you these segments as often as we can about the financial markets and money and bank in the united states. this one, we are talking about this outlook by the "associated press" as survey on their expectation for economic growth. chris rugaber, a couple of questions there. do you want to address them?
>> the federal reserve is made up of a board of governors in washington. we know who those people are. there are 12 regional banks. we know who those folks are. some of that is known. there are people who argue the fed is not as transparent as it could be. they don't release the minutes of the meeting until weeks after the meeting. they used to not release it at all. there has been an increase in transparency compared to what it used to be 10, 20 years ago. many of us would like to see more transparency on some of the decisions. we do know how it is made up. the fed does create money and that is loaned out by banks. that is the way it works right now. as far as the banks and bonuses, a lot of people have been upset about that.
some has been put in place several years ago. not so much on the bonuses but on reigning in some of the excessive practices that happen in the bubble. there have been some excessive moves on bonuses where the sec is requiring public companies to report how much more the executives are being paid than the average worker. there is an effort to put that out there for not just banks but all publicly traded companies. >> we showed some charts with total deficits and debt as a percentage of gdp. r will you run through the difference between deficit and debt. >> deficit is the annual difference between the money that the government takes in, the difference between those taxes and spending. right now, for the current year, the cbo expects a $415 billion difference. that's an annual deficit, spending 415 billion more than
we are taking in. believe it or not, that's relatively low compared to the past six or seven years pack in 2009, 2010. the deficits were topping $1 trillion a year. now, they have come down a little more than half that. the debt is the accumulation of all those annual deficits. we have debt owed to the public, around 13 trillion, $14 trillion. our economy is $17 thrillion. we do have a large and growing economy. many economists feel it can handle that debt, at least in the short-run. most would like to see it come down over the next decade or two. >> let's go here with trevor. >> caller: thanks so much for taking my call. i have a question about the $1.5 trillion in student debt and how that could depress our economy long-term. specifically because it makes
the individual who carry that debt less fluid in the job market, risk averse at a time when they should be taking morris cans in their entrepreneurship choices. how does it affect the macro economy. >> a good question. all those issues are out there. it is definitely, we are seeing some evidence that younger americans who are not carrying debt, student debt, averaging about $30,000 per person graduating. so it is likely they are less likely to buy homes or likely to delay that major purchase and less likely to buy cars. it is something that we will likely -- that is a burden for many young people and i think a lot of economists do see that as something that's holding back growth. the hope is, of course, with more people going to school and staying in school and getting more education over the
long-run, that that would have some offsetting benefit with more educated, more highly skilled workforce. it is a concern. it has grown quite rapidly. there is evidence that some people are having a tough time paying some of that off. now, a lot of that is government backed to some degree. it is unlikely to create the financial crisis we had six, seven years ago. how that is going to be paid off is certainly a big issue to keep an eye on for the next few years. >> just a couple minutes left with chris rugaber with the "associated press." it covers national financial market for the "associated press." 202-748-8001, republicans and democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8,000 in the mountain and pacific. 202-748-8001. we'll be joined in a few minutes by round table in which we will be talking about wall street and stock market regulation. we will be doing our lines,
republicans, democrats and independents in that segment. for christopher rugaber, call now if you have some questions for him. >> one more from twitter. with all the impact china has had recently, was their growth period related to their capitalistic policies and current decline to reversing back to central control? >> good question. some of that is definitely crew. both aspects of that question have something to them. for a long time, china has tried to open its economy and become more market oriented. that helped it grow as rates much faster than most advanced economies. recently, i don't know if they have completely reversed the course. there were some things they tried to do such as limit a drop in the stock market. the government was purchasing shares in its own stock market to try to prevent a stock market
collapse. that didn't work very well. some of that is true. they are trying to shift from an exported rented economy. most of the growth comes from companies shipping steel and manufactured goods, electronics, all kinds of things overseas. they are trying to build a more consumer oriented economy with china's middle class which has grown. that transition is also causing a lot of trouble, one of the challenges they are facing as well. >> ted is in beaver falls pennsylvania. good morning. you are on the washington journal. >> whether you guys are talking about banks and the federal reserve creating money and giving it to them, i thought i was remembering, did this change some sort of banking regulation.
didn't they used to have you could just walk in and give them a $20 bill and say, i want 20 ones or ten 5s and five 1s. also, government u.s. treasury checks. since they got free money from us, i thought this they had to perform those services. did i get that completely wrong? >> i think that's something most banks can do. i don't think there have been any regulatory changes to change that that i'm aware of. >> what was your other question? >> about cashing treasury checks. >> i can't just walk to the closest bank. i get direct deposit on a bank in another town. >> i'm not a total expert in everything that banks are doing. i think in recent years, as some
of them lost a lot of money in housing and other things, that some banks have become stricter about the free services they will provide to other people. you may very well have a harder time doing things if you don't have an account than you might have ten years or five years ago. >> bank regulations and changes brought by the dodge frank financial reform, a topic we are going to be talking about in our next hour if you want to stick around as well, judy is up in lady lake, florida, waiting to talk to christopher rugaber. go ahead, judy. >> i am thinking that these banks are becoming international and they are way too powerful. they really don't care about local needs and the people. they buy off politicians with their power. this is a very dangerous thing. i think the banks need to be broken up like they did in the last century. >> right. that's definitely a view that's out there.
some of these big, four or five biggest banks have at least half the deposits in memory serves in the u.s. they are still very large banks and a lot of concern out there, the kind of risk they present. if there is an economic down turn or a problem in the financial market, if having such large banks is destabilizing. some would argue it is helpful to have large banks particularly for those that are doing banking internationally and small banks. it is interesting that seven years after, we still have a lot of these large banks the hope is that some of the dodd/frank regulation has limited and made them safer and made it less likely that we will have a financial crisis. some of those worries are still
out there given they are still very large. darren, waiting here in washington, d.c., can you make it quick? >> sure, i will make it very quick. how are you doing, mr. rugaber? i wanted you to touch on china and reverse engineering of american products. and piracy. whenever there is a bootleg movie here in the states, a lot of times that movie has chinese writing at the bottom. just indicating that they recorded the move-in or over here. a big problem it is overlooked. mr. rugaber, you are pretty much an expert on china relations. i hope that you would say something really good about where we are going with china and just overall stealing of
american technology. i think it is really underlooked. we can't be competitive if they are stealing our technology. >> that's been an issue for a long time. people do talk about it. a lot of pressure on china. the sauchblu.s. and china have interesting relationship. piracy in music and movies has been an issue the u.s. government has pressured china a lot about. today, the news is that the owe pa ma administration is going to try to put some new sanctions on china for some espionage for economic espionage. there has always been an effort to keep china to respond to things when they do copy or pirate. one interesting thing, of course, is that stealing technology is something that a country does when it is trying to catch up. eventually, china will have to do its own innovation if it
twoonts keep greig. >> christopher rugaber has been covering the national economy for the "associated press" since 2006. the story we point viewers to. ap survey, dimmer outlook for the u.s. economy, wages and hires. if you missed this a.p. survey, the next one will be out in about three months. >> exactly. >> christopher rugaber, thanks for your time. next up, we'll discuss what regulation is already in place to oversea the stock market and financial sector and debate whether more or less regulation might be needed. the center for strategic and international studies looking at the iran nuclear agreement. here is a bit from that event. >> we were very clear throughout the negotiations and very well understood by the iranians, we were only talking about one category of our sanctions that were going to be relieved, the sanctions put in place over the last several years specifically to address iran's nuclear
program. that does not mean all of our sanctions on iraq are going to go away. a number of sanctions remain in place to address their support for terrorism. those are going to remain in place. there are sanctions that were put in place with respect to iran's human rights abuses. those are going to remain in place. there are sanctions that respond to the support for sire yria. one of the fundamental ones that are going to stay in place are those that relate to individuals and entities that relate to the department of treasury for their support for terrorism. this is one of the core things we have used, one of those things that are going to stay in place. all of those entities that were designated for their support for hezbollah, hamas or any other terrorist organizations are going to stay sanctioned,
including banks that were d designated for that. it might not sound like a lot. oh, these individuals. the real powerful aspect of this is part of the sanctions imposed under the comprehensive iran in 2010 said that if you are a foreign bank and you do business with one of these people on our list, if you help them transit money from iran to lebanon or even from iran to london, that doesn't matter. that bank can get cut off in its access to the united states financial system. that is all staying in place. that is well-understood by the iranians. >> to watch that entire event, go to our website, c-span.org. now, on a monday round table on the "washington journal," we are focusing on stock market and we are joined by mark calabrai
and meekle conzul. as we look back on the volatility of the past ten days on the stock market, are there certain regulatory rules in place that helped wall street weather this storm better than in 2008 and all of the stress on the stock market during that time? sure. compared to 2008, a large capacity in terms of the losses going on. this was relatively mild. it was pretty much a straightforward respond coming out of china and europe. there are things in place. the largest banks, particularly over $50 billion in size have stress tests where they are required to see how they would manage certain crises. they are tested for stock market crisis. we were talking 10% at the worst
which largely rebounded later in the week. some of the worries that people had about dodd/frank that would make bond markets particularly liquid or harder to trade for wall street to provide liquidity didn't really pan out. it was a minor event in the united states. some of the things we were originally worried about haven't panned out. >> when and should the federal government do more to cure market turmoil like we saw? >> if it's a reflection of changing fundamentals in the market, i don't think you should. we have known for years the boom was going to slow down and probably end badly. there is a lot ahead of us rather than behind. we developed the greenspan put
and the vbernanke put and we wil find out whether there is a yellen put. we have reduced the due diligence that investors should place upon looking at their own investments. view. republicans can call 202-748-8001. democrats, 8000, and independents, 8002. on the front page of the money section of "usa "today," stock market fell as much as 12.4% from the market's high to the closing low last tuesday, the first time they have subject to a correction. nearly $2 trillion has been
erased. in just days, stocks are racing back narrowing the losses from a high to 6.7% still leaving investors to wonder if the fan is over. talking about regulation in the stock market. what powers they actually have for this turmoil. >> there are a ton of big events there. >> as mark emphasized, china has huge implications for u.s. consumption. if there was, for instance, a
huge correction and a major bank went under, very likely, the fdic would now have powers to take over and wind down an investment bank the same way it does for an fdic insured bank. it is very controversial but power that was deemed necessary after a lehman brothers collapse. it seemed like there wasn't really good options outside of bankruptcy. that could have come into play. the federal reserve has extra powers to mandate capital requirement. this is something called bosu l3. it says things need to be insured. i don't think the stock market would have thrown off wall street, if it did, that's one thing we would have looked at to see if that did help. >> this is a pretty major stress test or a decent sized stress test over the past few weeks. does it show there are places
where dodd fraenlg has overreached or was unnecessary. >> i don't think it does. most of the places aren't necessarily related to the stock market. with he shou we should probably take a big step back. the sec has historically taken that approach. it is certainly worth recognizing. exchanges have their own rules, circuit breakers. when stocks fall, the exchange might stop trading. you might take a breathing. the approach is not that we are going to make sure you make a good investment but we are going to make sure you have the information to make the decisions for yourself. one of the hard parts is financial disclosures are generally pretty good at helping you figure out were these executives engaged in fraud. is somebody cooking the books.
a few prosecutions in china. this was largely a macroeconomic event. it is hard to get at the solution for that. markets go up and down. you should be prepared for that. how we can get people to have that longer view is a very difficult question. i don't think you can fix that via regulation. >> regulation have o the stock market and wall street is our topic for this panel discussion for the next 50 minutes. phones are open. republica republicans. phoneses are open. we will begin on the independents line. john in minnesota. john, good morning. >> caller: hi. i would like to have the folks there address the emphasis the federal reserve has on 2% inflation. it seems to me that it is just a gimmick so that we can pay off our debt with cheaper dollars.
thank you. >> it is really kind of interesting. when i was in graduate school working on my ph.d. you thought of zero inflation as zero. we have somehow gone through this matamorphosis for zero equals two. we have redefined the math. there is still a debate over whether that is price ability or not. central banks going back to the bank of england created in the 1600s. we are founded fundamentally for fiscal purposes. there is always this fiscal side of it. they have bought mortgage backed securities as well as agencies and treasuries has reduced the borrowing cost of the government. some have seen that as a blessing. i worry about it essentially as a curse. you need to look at this consolidated balance sheet. we treat this as something over here and that as something over there. they are very closely related.
>> mark is with the kado institute. what is that? >> we are a nonpartisan think tank in washington, d.c. we don't align with either party. we don't take any governmental money. we work on a broad range of social and economic issues chls we are loosely thought of as libertarian. we don't affiliate with either part party. >> and the roosevelt institute. >> we are the partner dedicated to ep couping the legacy of franklin and eleanor roosevelt alive. we are 51 c 3 grants and nongovernment money. >> our panel is here for the next 45 minutes. jim is waiting. norwood, new jersey, line for democrats. jim, good morning. >> caller: i would like to know is there any country where
capitalism has been successful where you don't need to practice some kind of austerity to make up for overspending? that's my question. thank you you. >> how can we define that term? >> what jim is getting at? the aftermath of the recession. a number of countries ran very large deficits. part of this is cyclical. you go into a recession, automatic stabilizers automatically go up. tax receipts go down. of course, the economy is declining. some of this is cyclical. you have a longer term physicalle ka, problems in the united states as well as other countries. you have seen this debate over how do you create confidence in a country. there is a vigorous academic debate. you need to signal credibility.
much of what we have seen in places, austerity has taken the form of tax increases and not a lot of government spending cuts in my opinion. that said, the debate is still out. this is a direct challenge to what the traditional keynesian, macroeconomic is. we don't have a lot of good empyrrhic law to say what the decision is in this case. that's fundamentally what he is getting at. >> historically, governments do not reduce their debt load by saving up. they stabilize the debt load and grow out of it. it eventually declines. this is what the you sdats after world war ii when it had incredibly high-def sits. you have a debt load but the country and the population gross and becomes less of a burden
relative to the size of government. this is what the imf is starting to recommend for the united states, the idea we should not raise taxes or cut spending in such a significant amount that would lower the amount of debt that's out there. there is also a lot of concern that there is not enough debt out there. federal debt is a safe asset. there are a lot of benefits to government debt that we don't often see. >> what do the benefits become detriments if it gets too high? >> i think you have to separate s from global issues. the caller asked globally. many countries, for instance, we have a reserve currency. people will take dollars around the world. people a little more questionable whether greece goes back. italy is the third largest sovereign debt market in the world. many places, it is not in my opinion fair to say that
sovereign debt is risk-free or a lack of in those countries. we do have to recognize that the u.s. has a very lucky company. we do need to be looking at the long-term. i do want to note there are a handful of examples. the evidence is mixed. we look at post world war ii. 1946, we cut spending by 40%. the economy grew close to 10%. at that time, a famous economist like paul samuelsson said, if we did this, we were going to create another great recession or depression and it didn't happen. anybody could pick a number of examp example manies where we cut government spending. that is very mixed in terms of austerity or whether the spending works or not.
220-748-8001, republicans, 8000, democrats, 8002, independents, if you want to join in on the conversation. michael conzul, bringing it back to the stock market and the activity of recent weeks. i saw that you had written recently that the jgyrations in the stock market impact more people because of the rise of 401(k)s and less pensions from companies that are out there. talk us through that, why you think that is or why that happened. we expanded >> it was like a government choice. we expanded tax shelters for 401(k)s in the early 1980s. a general move towards a lot more wealth going through the stock market. i think depending on what you are measuring i, a growth from 3 trillion in 1980 to $15
trillion. a lot of growth going on. a huge boom for a lot of people, a huge sort of risk. a lot of people don't have the sophistication to actively manage a fund. people react. the stock stock market is going down, should i sell? probably not. if you're investing for your retirement and you're an ordinary person, you should not even think of weeks and months or even decades. when people get panicked, it is difficult to manage and think through. we see the most sophisticated people screw it up so ordinary people have trouble with it. >> individual investors were having trouble accessing their stocks, whereas the big firms had no problem making moves as the market was moving quickly the past two weeks. >> i don't know the specifics. but in one sense people probably shouldn't be overreacting to information. we saw the market a half
corrected itself. it doesn't seem like people are selling. it is not necessarily the best choice for them. there is a differential. people are sophisticated and have access to front-line equipment and some do not. >> people who whose retirement fund did the best are those who forget they had it. women get better performance in the stock market because men trade too much. but i think there is a concern that to me i think it's a great thing we have had a greater variety of stock ownership. you know, you have seen that diversification. for the typical household, your major asset is your home, which is highly volatile. it is closely linked to the value of your job. you might be in the same job market. the time you lose your job is the same time your house will be
declining in value. so it's a double whammy. we need to help diversify more financially. when all your eggs are in one basket, that's a tremendous amount of risk. the stock market bubbles because housing is so more widely owned. when you see it decline, you are more likely to cut back in consumption. for the typical household, even the declines we saw are going to have minor effects in consumption. that will be the concern about the chinese economy and its impact on the united states economy rather than direct impacts. >> be interested to hear from viewers how it impacted you the past two weeks. were you watching the stock market closely. what did you do when you saw this roller coaster ride of the past two weeks. east china michigan line for
independence you're up on the washington journal. >> good morning. go ahead, richard. >> caller: i would like to know if these gentlemen could tell me if the regulators will ever get around to keeping the corzines out and letting the average investor with the mutual funds and all that. they have preferential treatment. if i was an individual getting into the stock market, i can't go in and trade and do like the others, the big guys. and this day in age with computers you should be able to. i'm wondering if one of them could let me know if that would ever happen. it's certainly not fair the way it is now. >> mark? >> corzine has a lot of baggage. >> the fairness of the system.
>> exactly. i think what richard is getting at, we have accredited investor rule. if you're above this line, you can take a lot of risk voluntarily without essentially this sort of disclosures and safeguards that people below the line would have. it's usually tied to some amount of wealth and income. that has not been indexed. there has been talk about should we open it up more? and then that opens up crowd funding. for instance, hedge funds exist because they only take accredited investors. they're not subject to the same disclosure rules that a typical mutual fund or investment bank is because they limit the type of investor they take in that worth. so that is an area of debate. for me as a generality we should want equality in the law and treating rich people and poor
people differently. it is to protect the little guy from making mistakes. i think that's something that should be reexamined. >> in fairness of the system? >> one, there's been a big extension of the jobs act, which we are going to see how that plays out in terms of markets and whether this could induce fraud or innovation and start-up. we will see the impact of that. part of it is market structure. they are structurally not like mutual funds where they can take a lot of small investment where it tends to have higher turnover. they need a lot of capital for the long haul. they are multiyear. there are reasons to make sure there is limitation to allow the investment. they are very high fee. they involve a lot of risks that people may not straightforwardly
understand. it is about momentum or other things that, you know, math wizards are trying to figure out. those markets are not as transparent. there is not the disclosure of fees that you would see in the mutual fund market. if there was an extension of that kind of transparency like hedge funds and private equity, that would definitely open up the door for broader investor base. >> mobile, alabama is up next. bill is calling on the line for democrats. bill, good morning. >> caller: good morning. in the 1990s, interestingly savings was quite generous. now interest rates on savings is significantly low, embarrassingly low. why is this interest and savings shown any recovery whatsoever today? thank you. >> i'll let you kick off this one. >> sure. especially in the late 1990s, you had a booming economy.
unemployment at one point was under 4%. inflation was 2% to 3% rate. wage growth in the lower half distribution, which is rare the past couple decades. i think it was a high consumption, high wage growth. as far as the fall of the housing level, we have seen a low interest rate environment. the federal reserve kept rates low to stimulate demand. inflation has remained low. interest rates broadly seem low. people talk about a global savings club, which is a pool of capital trying to find an investment that is not out there right now. so i think it's just a very different economy right now. and the fundamentals point to a much lower rate of interest rates than we saw in the 80s and 90s. >> do you want to make a prediction for when you think
the fed might raise the interest rate as they have been talking about and everyone is asking when it might happen? >> i have no idea. there is no reason to do it in the short-term given the low rate of inflation. people are worried that inflation is going to fall. not on the stock market. on fundamentals coming out of europe and china, i see no wage pressure, no kind of inflationary pressure out there right now. so i think, if anything, the next move, might be expansionary as opposed to contracting. >> for the question from my friends in mobile who like to remind me the first mardi gras was there and not new orleans. >> really? >> yes. it might touch on a number of things. absolutely in some of the ways inflation is lower. you have to keep the flip side what you get on your savings is what people are willing to pay to invest.
investment demand, what you're going to give us in your economy. that's part of it. all of those things are correct. it has reduced the overall rate you would get but for that. so the bottom line is it's a number of factors, one is federal reserve policy. and i think regulatory policy plays a role too. dodd-frank made it much more expensive to run a checking account. you get a return on your savings. the more expensive it is to maintain a checking account or savings account the less they are going to give back to you. half a dozen reasons here. all of them i think are important. some of them are beneficial. some of them are not. if we can get back to the question when they raise rates. i think if you go back and look at particularly vice chair stanley fisher in jack hon hole this week, i think he did say a rate increase is still on the table. the initial reaction was no way
they could raise rates now. i think he very clearly put it back on the table. i think it is far pastime. i believe this two-fold. we are far past whatever employment benefit we're going to get. usually with monetary policy you're a year to two years when you get the bump in terms of employment effect. usually years later you have gotten what you're going to get out of it. the benefits are declining. we are beyond that. and the financial instability. i feel like if i close my eyes and pretend, i feel like i'm back in 2003, 2004, where we had a building housing bubble. the conversation was we don't want the fed to move. job growth is not where it should be. it feels like it is that way every cycle. i feel like the bond markets, equity markets. and even the property markets quite strong. i'm not going to go as far as to say a bubble at this point. but i do think asset prices
raise significant concern in my mind in terms of financial stability. >> two different takes when to raise the rate or to raise a piece in the money section of "usa today" this morning. would agree more with mark. the fed must be bold. hike rates in september. 10 reasons it shouldn't be swayed. call us with your thoughts like george did in wilmington. george, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a question or a comment, brief comment and a question. i do believe the proliferation of regulations is and has been for many years, but especially since president obama took office on, straining the economy. with that said, i have a question of mr. calabria of the cato institute. he commented that paul
samuelsson, the noted former economist and professor at m.i.t., i believe, predicted that cutting spending in 1946 by 40% would cause another recession or depression. instead, the economy grew by 10%. i found that comment very interesting. i was wondering if mr. calabria if he knows, and i assume he does, what professor samuel attempted to explain his error. and if so, was it in terms of the decrease in military spending at the end of the war, world war ii, or pent up consumer demand. i would be very interesting in your comments in that regard. >> go ahead.
>> thank you, george. that was military spending and demobilization. obviously i was not there at the time. that's fair to say, despite a couple of gray hairs. there wouldn't be jobs. there wouldn't be sufficient demand. there was rationing. that was a widely held view in the economics recession. and there was concern the economy would not be able to handle all the soldiers coming home. in that time there was a view that world war ii that got us out of the war. and that is in controversy today. i'm not picking on the professor particularly but i love the fact a that if you picked up his
textbook published before the fall of the berlin wall he talks about how great the economy was there too. >> did you want to jump in? >> just that the economy was radically different than what you would see right now. government spending. because of all the mobilization. we have wage controls, price controls, government directing of funds. the transition went smoothly in the late 1940s. i think more smoothly than people anticipated at the time. 4 it's tough to broadly generalize. in terms of a low -- essentially when the economy was booming during the 1940s because of all of this military spending and you were building things that would explode. >> a lot of turnover there. >> a lot of turnover. >> fred is indianapolis, indiana. line 4.
independence. >> caller: good morning. i would like to comment on your panel's interpretation of the high frequency trading and the epfs. if you're not big enough to be in and you have all the talking heads waving finger at the small independent trader not to get in and the fall out from underneath the smaller companies. they try to scare you to stay out of the market. and these etfs massive losses and roller coaster, it's always as if the game is rigged. you people are not smart enough and technology is so good and the velocity is such that you need to stay out. but just invest your money when madison avenue sells you an etf.
it's ridiculous. and there's such apathy and such anger. the talking heads. and i don't care what individual money man you're talking about. it's not a free market. it's just too international and the velocity of high-frequency trading just makes it rig. you all wear nice ties. and you have such high opinion of yourself. but basically you're just saying, okay, the great unwashed, don't invest. and if you need to, let the hedge funds guys worry about it and we'll wave our finger at you if you get in too much. >> let's let our panel jump in. high-frequency trading. you can sense the frustration in the caller's comments. >> sure. so there's a lot of debate about the net effects on high-frequency trading for retail kaourls. consumers.
there's a lot of word coming out that is particularly compelling that talks about pinging the liquidity. there is free writing with people with deeper pockets. one way to deal with that that is particularly compelling that the caller might want to look into, option its off at low frequency. with the market there are premiums of high-frequency trading. it's not just retail people or people with small portfolios. it is a huge premium over location, which basically says if you cut milliseconds off you are willing to pay a lot because, you know, it's essentially -- you get first in line for better or worse. it's not clear to me there is a huge amount of economic boom
earlier than another millisecond. there's ways to deal with it instead of lining up trade. >> i have a grandfather who came here and didn't speak a word of english but could make a suit. i appreciate the stories. they work out well. for me, the exchange traded funds they are two separate issues. i think the success in wall street is exaggerated.
for a lot of ways they have come in and replaced them a as market makers. that said, we don't have a free market. i absolutely agree with that. it was created 80 years ago. you had a lot of choice. they ran out a lot of competition. we started to see this. and i think it's been a difficult and painful process. but i think ultimately this is often criticized as fragmentation to me is a benefit. we have seen a decade. for instance, the new york stock exchange market shared 80% to 20%. i think having that ra variety is important. i think the regulatory structure very complicated, distorts the markets in a harmful way and needs to be rethought. but, again, no one is going to
say our securities markets are free market. but i think we can get in that direction. >> our guest mark of the cato institute. our caller from west virginia, line for democrats. middleton, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm calling to ask, i would like to know why the federal government and the banks are discouraging people from saving money. there's no way a person can save any money these days because when you get .05 interest on money you have in your savings account, you get zero. the banks invest your money and make all kind of money off of it. and i know it's supposed to be for the debt. but it's doing the american people a mis justice because
they cannot save any money. they keep talking about putting money away for a rainy day fund. why put it in a bank and they will put you nothing for it. put it in a can and bury it? >> so there is partly, and you have fed chair articulate that part of the strategy was to force investors into high risk assets. whether it's into the stock market to create this wealth effect in the other markets. part of that strategy has been you get nothing on your bank account, which is absolutely true and i think is a very real and pressing concern. the point is to make it to get the economy going i'm skeptical that it worked in that way. there are a number of other reasons that the economy was different in the past that i don't think you can blame policy in washington on. but i do think there are some
you can lay at the foot of the federal reserve. >> and this is one of them? >> there is one of them. half a dozen other impacts too. in my opinion, monetary policy is a big contributor. >> even though interest rates are low at banks, the rate they are lending is lower as well. if it has expanded, it hasn't expanded very much. so the banks aren't making out with murder on these kind of events. it's unpleasant to hear but they are still too high. they can't go negative. people would just throw it in a can, as you said. there is a lot of debate about whether or not to raise interest rates. but essentially rates had to be lower in order to clear the market and stimulate the market. people talk about zero lower balance. the fed can't set negative and
rate. i would argue that a higher level interest rate which would increase unemployment would be even harder on the american economy and everyday people. >> i think this is where we are going to disagree to the extent which the lower interest rates has increased employment as something i would say i'm a little skeptical of. >> on the question of when to raise interest rates, if there is no inflation and we have a growing economy, there's no reason to raise interest rates. and then from left field, how much should we be invest anything virtual currencies in how profitable are bitcoins? >> they are risky. i'm a fan of virtual currencies because i like alternatives. 300 plus of them. they're not the only one.
but i do think i would caution anybody from putting a significant amount of their wealth into it. and i think that's true with any one investment. you should not put all your eggs in one basket. this is going to sound hokie. you most of the things that you learn from your mom and dad are pretty good. same with bitcoin. there's going to be a lot of volatility. it looks more volatile. compared to other currencies, it's less volatile. so again to me i think we will see digital currencies. i'm not smart enough to say. but let's get back to the previous question the first part of the question about when to raise interest rates. as i mentioned earlier, i find it frustrating swraoer interest to. is it a lot? no. is it negative? no. we have low levels of inflation.
higher levels of inflation. anybody who is struggling to buy groceries, struggling to buy a new computer. new york fed president dudley was widely mocked for let them eat microchips. that's where the deflation has been. and again, stanley fisher touched upon this over the weekend. it has comes from transitory declines. cheaper to put gas in your car but more to pay rent. to say the bottom line question is the reason we need to raise rates and do it before is because i worry about the asset bubbles. i worry we are going to go through another 2005, 2006 bubble that will end badly in a 2007, situate situation. financial stability is my bottom line concern. we all know if it is quite painful, people lost their job. it is not something i want to go through again. >> michael?
>> to go quickly, it's really useful for viewers to separate three things from bitcoin. basically a record-keeping function, which is going to revolutionize wall street. there's bitcoin and crypto currencies as a currency. honestly if a friend came up and said i'm going to keep my money in euros for a fund to see if i can enjoy the risk, i would ask do you have any debts in anything that's euro? they would say no. i would say you probably don't want to take on currency risk for a fund unless you are particularly a gambling person. unless you have debt denominated in bitcoin. sit volatile. it poses a lot of risks. it's not clear to me what the
risk aversion up side is. >> let's go to michael who is wait anything gerard, illinois. thanks for waiting. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. we don't see regulations in wall street. i'm a small business owner. zero percent. i go to a local bank. i can't get a loan to buy a bobcat. you know, the problem is you talk about the 2008 collapse. not one person held accountable. in my small town you bounce a check for $18, they take you to jail. you guys need to live in the real world. that's how we look at things. we see the news, the rich people never held accountable. the laws never change. our banks do nothing for us but charge us.
>> go ahead. i want you to start on this issue. no one was held accountable. >> yeah. there was very little, by design, criminal investigation by wall street. there is the interlocking of leads in washington. second, what would happen after arthur andersen, a large firm collapsed quickly. it put a chill on the proper way to do it and instead focused on large fines, you know, essentially, do not admit -- people aren't going to say they did anything wrong but they're going to cut a deal. we have seen it in a lot of fields. it's not just finance. there have been investigations and fines and reworking of the financial system. it's unfair and it's unfortunate that a lot of people got away with murder during this crisis. and overcriminalization of
poverty and everyday life has expanded in the past couple decades is particularly chilling. that said, i think we also want to think forward how do we balance these needs? there's -- honestly, i too am disturbed by it. i think it's really unfortunate and very frustrating. >> let me say to michael, i share that frustration. i think there is some knew answer why i might see this slightly different but i do see it the same. people have not been held to account. i don't think regulators and politicians, i don't think anybody has been held to account in any big way. sure, there have been some big cases. mike touched on the overcriminalization. i don't think we should sacrifice due process because we're upset. and i'm upset.
i do think one is the space in the sec and the doj and the companies is to settle quickly. if you're an executive and you're given two options. would you like a long trial and go to jail or write us a big check from your shareholder's money. >> where does that money go? these big fines. >> it depends. so you have seen -- so we have the big 50 state ag settlement. i find it troubling. more went to state governments than to home owners that were closed on. >> to use for what. >> it depends on the state. some it had to go into the general fund. some for mortgage relief. no accountability now any of that has gone. it just disappeared. it is all predictable. same thing with the tobacco
settlements. states benefited from all sort of stuff for that. there's been a big payday there. some has gone back to the tax payer. fannie and freddie have been very aggressive on banks. i think that's absolutely necessary. you can't let it pass on bad assets to the government. the lack of criminal prosecutions. they are harder to do and take a lot more time and you are more than likely not to succeed on them. it doesn't mean you shouldn't do them. but unless you hold them accountable to do that, it's going to take the path of least resistance. mike brought up his in ability to not get a bobcat. a lot of it is because of the regulation we have. the capital standards that banks face are risk weighted. so the risk weight on a small business loan is 100%. so if you were going to make,
say, a million dollar small business loan, you would have to hold $80,000 in capital. if you were to buy a million dollars in fannie mae debt, you would hold 80,000. i have yet to learn of a financial crisis actually caused by small business. treating fannie mae like it was safe is what broke the system. >> time for just a couple more calls in washington journal. about 10 minutes left. 202-748-8001. democrats 202748-8002. independents 202-748-8003. >> the criminal activity of the
stock market is ongoing as we speak. you look no further than mr. baccard connected to the fiasco in new york with that ponzi scheme. four times now i can document -- it's more like seven -- mostly they are getting back in flor a florida, mostly in miami, with percentages off the charts. they buy money in the cayman islands and swiss banks and the man in the moon brings money back. on a friday, i can document four times now without blinking an eye a that they have gotten money back. the reason is because their nieces and nephews are the ones that stole it in the first place. so people around the country should realize we all lost tons of money here. but there is one select group getting money back as we speak. they put it in the papers in new york on a friday with a small caption.
but showily but surely these people are getting their money back. i would like you two gentlemen to look into that. i will hang up and listen to your comments. >> one thing i will mention is about nieces and nephews. when you look at stanford. in fact, if you look at a lot of crime, it's people you know. you're more off likely going to get ripped off by your relatives than anybody else. that's especially when it comes to financial advice. i used to work in identity theft. the massive majority was by family members. >> trust issue? >> yeah. don't let your guard down just because your cousin comes to you with an investment scheme. raise your guard more than you would otherwise. there really is this focus on big banks and investors. to me the most shocking example of this, the inspector general
report, this is a big ponzi scheme out of texas, when the line and examiner supervisor says bring me wall street cases and six months later they left the feed. so you have this focus at the sec of going on highly specialized cases like insider trading. part of this is because the employees can then leave and get paid big dollars doing this work. whereas the typical ponzi scheme, there's not a lot of money for sec lawyers in that field. they don't want the emphasis on retail investors. it was going after goldman to protect a german bank. so again, to me, i think the sec haslett down the retail investors. >> does it have its priorities wrong here? >> i would back up for a second and say in terms of actual risks, in terms of being ripped off or in terms of losing
investment, high fees and lack of proper diversification in 401(k)s and other retail investment vehicles has me a little bit more worried. obviously if you fall into a ponzi scheme that's terrible. as mark said, you should keep your guard up with things that sound too good to be tree, particularly when it comes to people you think you should trust. people end up in account with too high fees relative to the risk they face. that's a huge skin off the entire pool. we don't think of it as fraud. but it is something that really does impact people's savings impounded decade afterdeck aid. >> patricia, are you there? >> caller: yes, i am. i've been following your conversation. and my questions, i have more than one now.
but the one i called about is talking about defined benefit pensions versus 401(k)s and so on. i am wondering how we got into this position that we are in right now? we are talking here about the common good of our country. it's really difficult for me to understand coming from where i am. i was taught about the common good. the responsibility. conscience. those kind of things. and i just don't understand why we're devastating our own people. can you answer that? i'm talking about corporations. i'm talking about wall street. i'm talking about the responsibility to our own people in our country.
what is happening and why there are so many people like you in positions where you can inform the discussion and help us. and people aren't doing it. people who are in those positions. >> lit me jump in here. one thing you can do is just defend social security. the move away from defined benefit pensions is long and multipronged in why it is happening. it is happening among a wide variety of corporations and it's been happening for decades. i don't think the trend will reverse itself. poverty for people who can no longer work is a societal problem and does affect the common good. make sure there is a public pension available to people. one they can't outlive. one that is there for them when it is necessary. there's also ways to make more
public forums of 401(k)s. the tax subsidies radically disproportionate. 80% going to the top 20% of income earners. that's a huge problem. if we're concerned about the common good. it is easy to say why aren't the corporations doing this. there is a lot of reasons why. green is part of it. and changing fundamentals. it g.m. provides this huge bouquet of social insurance for its workers. that's then the rule for the public. i don't think we can look to corporations anymore. we have to look at expanding and defends social security, more public forms of investment. >> i share patricia's concern. i spent seven years capitol hill working. i rarely saw the emphasis on the common good. it would be easy to say if it was just corporations, but it is
certainly not. it is ava right of interest groups. one of the most shocking quotes to me was the head of the new york teachers union said when the kids start paying dues, i'll care about them. a lot of special interest looking out for themselves and not the common good. i would say it is up to the politicians to look out for the common good and not give in to special interest. on some occasions i said no, so i know it's possible to do that. to me the number one reason we moved away from defined benefits, accounting companies didn't account all of them. i'm going to give you all this money when you retire and never keep it on the books. that company had to put aside money in reserve for that. i wish we had done it for public pensions. you can look at california and
illinois where the public pension is destroying the states. we are seeing, for instance, money on education is cut. so that retired firefighters and policemen. i like firefighters and policemen. but they get million dollar pensions and you have to cut the school budget, that's not for the common good. it is the same with social security. we made lots of promises. i think we can reform all of these programs in a way that addresses poverty and protects the poor. bill gates doesn't need his social security. we can make them sustainable, target those in need. it is a poverty reduction strategy rather than promise a bunch of goodies to everybody that we're never going to be able to deliver on. i'll put it this way. you could take all the wealth, 100% of the wealth of every
billionaire and it will not be enough to fund the gap in medicare and social security. we need to reform this or we are going down the path of looking like italy, greece, spain, portugal. and we have an opportunity to turn our ship now. again, if we don't do so, we are banning the common did. >> just a minute or two left. michael has been waiting in townsend, ma marks line for independent. michael, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i want to jump back to the lack of criminal prosecution in the financial crisis. if it is not financially feasible to prosecute these crimes and instead have them pay a fine, does that mean that criminal ality is the business today? if that's the case, why have the laws to begin with? >> decent place to end. we have about a minute left.
mark, i'll let you start. >> i certainly share that concern. i do think it is too easy for corporations, executives to pay with shareholders's money rather than have some responsibility. while there was a tremendous amount of fraud, in my opinion, i think the crisis was bad macroeconomics and bad government policy which contributed to that fraud. we should go a after people who committed crimes. but we shouldn't fool ourselves to think that would be sufficient enough. >> yeah. you have to look at the fact that there was a general move to make regulations more friendly to wall street from 1980s onward. there is no extending the derivatives. giving free reign with mortgage-backed securities. so when you have this kind of la say fair open space, it is very difficult after the fact to go and see with clear lines who defrauded who.
>> the rooseveltinstitute.org and cato.org. what do you want to hear from the 2016 candidates when it comes to this issue of climate change? we're talking about this issue today as the president is highlighting this issue on a trip up to alaska. you can start dialing in now. the phone numbers on on your screen. we'll be right back. tonight on the communicators. this summer marks the 25th anniversary of digital television. mark tayer, "tell visionaries"
discusses how television has changed. >> many of us are watching in a multiscreen world. and that has been one of the more exciting outcomes of this whole digital revolution. it used to be there was a stationary screen with hd tv that was a big screen in the living room. but with the internet and the wireless world extending things you have tablets, wi-fi all over the place such that tv is not just alined back experience. it's wherever you want to go. it also video. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. a signature feature of book tv is our all day coverage of book
fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here's our schedule. we're live from the 15th annual national book festival from our nation's capital. near the end of september, we're in new york for the brooklyn book festival celebrating its 10th year. and in early october, southern festival of books. the week after that we are live with the austin, texas book festival. at the end of the month, we will cover two the same weekend. from our nation's heartland, wisconsin book festival madison and the boston book festival. the start of november, we will be in portland, oregon for wordstock, and national book awards from new york city. at the end of november, we're live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. that's a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's book tv.
>> washington journal continues. >> in our first segment of the washington journal today we asked what you thought president obama's legacy would be on climate change. we are asking what do you want to hear from the 2016 presidential candidates on this issue. here's the headline in today's wall street journal. climate change builds as 2016 campaign issue president barack obama's trip to the alaska an arct arctic. in past presidential elections climate change was a second tier topic. mr. obama made it clear it is crucial to his legacy. and serves as a benchmark for the candidates for the 2016 campaign. we're asking what do you want to hear? phone lines are open.
202-478-2001 for republicans. 202-748-2002 for democrats. 202-748-2003 for independents. robert, good morning. >> caller: on the climate change, i think it's a farce to begin with. i hope the republican candidates do come out with some facts during their arguments. the weather forecasters can't even forecast tomorrow's weather accurately half the time. and we're talking about forecasting the weather for the world. and i think it's just all silly. i find it hard that people with a brain cannot look at the history of this earth and
realize that -- i mean, climate change is just an agenda. i hope they can come out against a anything to prevent climate change. that's all i have. thank you. >> on this issue of americans's views on climate change, the pew research center did polling to look at where u.s. will stand on this idea of climate change. 50% say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity. and 25% of adults say there is no solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer. you can see the party breakdown there. among republicans and those who lean republican, just 27% say that the earth is getting warmer and that's because of human activity. among democrats, 71% believe it is getting warmer and it is
because of human activity. check out those results at the pew research center. mary lou is waiting in west milton, ohio. line for democrats. mary lou, good morning. you're on the washington journal. >> caller: i'm just a democrat since 2008. i'm out in the nowhere land. i disagree with the last caller. i'm looking for a man who relations we need a change. it's been pretty well proven that a lot of it has to do with man made felt we're putting in the air. we're assaulting mother nature i think the way mother nature is going to pair irish. i think i have a brain. and i think the man before me probably doesn't use his.
>> west milton, ohio. in terms of where the candidates stand. they are convinced human behavior is emboldening hillary clinton and her primary rivals to prescribe more aggressive solutions than those pushed by president obama. mr. trump has said he doesn't think climate change is produced by human activity. the story noting that former florida governor jeb bush, who has equivocated on climate change in the past, said to the wall street journal last week, human activity has contributed to climate change and he would address it in his candidacy. here's a question you need to ask everybody as a republican. what is the environmental policy of the republican, mr. graham said on cnn in june. he said i get a blank stare. the story is in today's wall
street journal. if you want to read more. we're asking viewers to call in. what do you want to hear on this issue of climate change? ana is in chicago, illinois, line for democrats. ana, good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> i'm good, ana. thanks for calling. >> caller: i just want to say -- make a comment. one party is really going on and the other party don't want to see it. so that's my opinion. thank you. >> ana in chicago, illinois. bob is up next from michigan. bob, go ahead. you're on the washington journal. >> caller: yeah, when it comes coming election, i think we are probably not going to see climate change to be the issue that the obama administration would really like it to be. i think if the democrats are smart, they will focus more on the blatant exploitation of the remaining resources at the expense of more valuable resources by everybody.
and i think you're going to see that, as much as i hate to say it, it's been coming for 60 years, the illegal immigration and the wholesale movement of dispossessed people. >> okay on. do you think that climate change might bump up in terms of the importance in viewers's minds or hearing about it come december when there is this big global climate meeting scheduled in
paris and that the president is talk building global action in his trip out to alaska this week. there is some expectation there could be a global effort reached in december. >> i guess what i'm trying to say is these kinds of meetings, specific to climb change, without a complete agenda in terms of resource management, really aren't going to mean much anyway. this is a holistic approach to how we take care of the remaining resources that it has. and until some candidates get that holistic approach, screaming things like climate change, climate change, it's just not going to be very -- it's not going to reverberate much with the electorate. people have to take a stand and say, listen, we're using our resources up so much faster now when we have alternatives available we could use some of those resources, short-term resources and the funds brought in by that to stabilize our
environmental destruction. i mean, climate change -- it could be human -- you know, human gun. and it could just be a naturally occurring kind of thing. all i'm saying is until we get a holistic approach to this environmental destruction that's going on by the seven point however many billion of us, we're not going to get a handle on it politically. and i think just saying climate change isn't going to be the thing. >> it's going to be illegal immigration and movement of humans in order to find a place they can live. >> okay. bob in lawton, michigan. what do you want to hear from the 2016 candidates on the issue of climate change? shawn is up next from florida, independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning.
as lay people we're not qualified to comment on climate change per se. but what we are qualified is good stewardship of our world. and quite frankly, we've polluted everything to the nth degree. i live in the florida keys. we watch the tides raise all the time. we're beginning to have the discussion, should we move. we're bringing that to the floor. and we're going to have to come to grips, those people who live where i am, as to whether there is an issue of water rising for whatever reason. and we're going to have to deal again, i want to hear them comment on being good stewards of our land. drilling for oil in sacred areas and trash removal, energy consumption.
as far as vehicles are concerned with the 30 miles per hour as opposed to 100. those kind of things. we need to deal with all of those subjects rather than the argument, is there or is there not climate change. we simply cannot come to grips with that. >> you're in florida where several candidates hail from, presidential candidates. what did you think about former governor jeb bush when he was in office about these issues that you're talking about? was he saying the right things on these issues back then? >> no. mr. bush was actually, with all due respect, a disaster. the people who asked him to do certain things in the state not even vis-a-vis the climate change, he didn't comply with those. the attitude, not dealing with the real problems, which is what we see around the world and around the nation in particular. the politicians in washington don't seem to understand what's going on in the real world.
that's why you see someone like mr. trump or the senator, the democrat, coming ahead fully. people are angry because the policies that we have been given, the intelligence that's supposed to be there simply doesn't resonate with the viewer. the people in the economic crisis. those of us who have suffered through that sort of thing have a completely different concept than the people you're interviewing. the real people out in the real world, which i know the cliche, they're not at all involved in what's going on in washington. what we need to do is basically stop everything that's going on in washington. when you're talking about we can't afford to take care of people and feed people. the problem is we've got weapons all over the place, trillions of dollars being spent uselessly. school systems are begging for economics. older people are not getting the type of medical attention they
need. we are not dealing with the problems of the nation. somebody somewhere made a ridiculous decision to continue on with wars and so on. we need to correct those things and have someone come along. mr. trump is indicating that he wants to build a fence across the southern border. what a disgrace? those people who live on our southern border, the mexican people, are very wonderful people. for us to make the kind of comment that the russians made in the berlin wall is an absurdity. or the israelis. we need to tear that down. we tpwhaoed to have economic sanctions on the people who employ undocumented aliens. >> got your point. stick to climate change, though, here in our last 15 minutes. this is a program we try to hear from real people in the real world through your calls. we appreciate your calls in this and all of our segments of the
washington journal. mary is waiting in grant, texas, line for republicans. mary, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i am a republican and i live in texas. and super-educated person. i watch news day and night, and i read all of the time, and one of the major reasons that we. i'm not stupid. i'm 77, and i believe in some climate change, but my experience with the government when they start testing regulations and i've followed republicans and this government is not trusted and not believed and they've laughed so many times in our base and obama has done so many things right as one person and not as being voted for, but we don't trust him. we don't trust him sitting up there telling us what we've got to do and we don't trust him telling us the truth or not and
if we had more trust and he could come out and say this then they would all believe in him. he's been a good president. he really hasn't sold us out for the muslim, you know, because we think he has, and i'm not accusing and saying that's a fact because he has one of his people mow me down. the americans are very afraid of him. >> we move on to spring in texas. good morning. >> good morning, sir. i appreciate you taking our calls. first of all, i would like to say that there are approximately 3 billion people on this planet and it will get larger. god gave us dominion over this planet which means like the gentleman before me said we have to be good stewards and not only to the planet, but society, the rich, the elderly, the people in need. i think greed has overcome the country and the government and that's why we've not seen
anything done by climate change and it's all driven by money and politics. we have a legacy to leave to our kids and our grandkids that can either be a foresight or it can be a stupidity of what we do to this planet right now, but there's only going to be more and more people, and if we don't act now it will only get worse. >> so james, regulation -- who is saying the right things on the campaign trail? do you think this is a topic that's being discussed enough among the 2016 candidates? >> no. not on the republican side. they're going to avoid anything to do with climate change. they want to avoid anything to do with immigration. reagan in 1984 gave up some ship or 3 million illegal aliens with the promise to close the border and that was 1984 so here we are 31 years later and nothing's been done about it. a lot of these people here are
good. i work with some of them. you can either have a berlin wall where you don't let people out or you can have a berlin wall where you don't let people in. it depends on where your heart is and where you are with god. i think things need to change and it needs to change in a big way, and our government isn't doing it and the one reason why trump and bernie sanders and them are doing well is because they're bringing these subjects up and this is what the people want to have taken care of and none of the people up there on that stage right now are doing it except for donald trump and bernie sanders. >> james, you mentioned bernie sanders. bernie sanders has been critical of this administration for its efforts to allow drilling in the arctic. of course, that drilling in the arctic also a backdrop of the president's trip to alaska this week. "the new york times" reporting that the president is paying little heed that he allowed to
go forward just this month and there have been activists and environmental groups in alaska who are trying to remind the public about the drilling that's been allowed. bernie sanders in a recent tweet on the drilling in the arctic said at a time when our planet is warming due to climate change the last thing our environment needs is more drilling. what we need is for the congress and white house to move toward clean energy, such as solar, wind and biomass. that's from his presidential twitter page. let's go to kevin waiting in gunnison, colorado. line for republicans. kevin, good morning. >> good morning. i'll stick to climate. i think what obama is doing with the carbon emission question having coal mines closed because their coal's not clean enough is kind of a mistake because china and russia are still pretty into carbon emissions in their power
plants and if you don't think worldwide you hardly ever can get things done. china -- china puts out so much pollution that it affects possible greenhouse gas and even in colorado they're having to close plants because the coal is not as clean as for his standards and that's kevin gun son, colorado. >> we'll try to get to as many of your calls on "the washington journal," what do you want to hear from the clent andidates i 2016 the line for independence and bernie, good morning. >> a beautiful morning to you. by the way, most people say thanks for taking my call and this morning i usually have to redial and dial and this time i got right through, and i think the moon must be in the right
sickle or something. >> thanks for the call. your thoughts, bernie. >> there were two callers that called in that stole some of my thunder and even the fellow in texas. the one fellow about taking a holistic approach to the earth which made me want to point out a website called the story of stuff. i think people should go take a look at this. it points out how resources are being used and ending up in our pacific ocean garbage patch and the atlantic ocean garbage patch. so that's number one. number two, one of the fellas said something we're old enough where we're not going to have to worry about it as much and we ought to care about our children and grandchildren and the fellow who had a christian approach to it that god gave us stewardship over the earth and it's not just, you know, just climate change and bernie sanders and anybody named bernie ought to be
looked at closely for our next president, obviously, but that was a stroke in there for all the guys named bernie, but i really believe that anyone who can't look at the pictures of the receding ice and the polar caps in the arctic and greenland and even in our own country and the glacier national park in montana where ice is receding and the fellow was talking from down in the keys about the fact that they're seeing the rising water already. there are three books that i finished reading that i highly recommend. the sixth extinction is number one, countdown is the second and i just finished reading and it will slip my mind the name of the book i just finished reading along those same line, the three good books out there right now that are written and well-do you meaned on the fact that we don't
just have to have an opinion to relate this to politics. if you'll notice, most republicans calling in are just like your -- they don't believe that nao is having an effect on the environment. on the democratic side and the republican side those people informed concede the fact that there is climate change, but i like what the fellow said about the holistic approach to our resources. we're burning up the fossil fuels that can also make plastic and make medicines and there are so many other functions and uses for fossil fuels and this whole idea of clean coal. you talk about an oxymoron and that's the oxymoron of the road. >> bernie, a few other folks waiting to call in during this segment of "the washington journal." that's bernie calling in from delaware. he mentioned in his comments the melting arctic glaciers that president obama will be highlighting in his trip up to
alaska over the next couple of days and here is a brief clip from the president's weekly address over the weekend and this was released on saturday ahead of his trip in which he talks about one of the reasons why he's making this trip and the global warms. >> alaska's glaciers are threatening tourism and adding to rising seas. if we do nothing alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between 6 and 12 degrees by the end of the century changing all sorts of industries forever. this is all real. this is happening to our fellow americans right now. in fact, alaska's governor recently told me four villages are in imminent danger and have to be relocated. already rising sea levels are beginning to swallow one island community. if another country threat end to wipe out an american town we'd do everything in our power to protect ourselves.
climate change poses the same threat right now. that's why one of the things i'll do while i'm in alaska is to convene other nations to combat this threat. since the united states and china work together to set ambitious climate targets last year, leading by example, one of the world's biggest emitters have come forward with new climate plans of their own and that's a good sign as we approach the global climate negotiations in paris. >> that was the president from his weekly address released on saturday ahead of this trip up to alaska over the next three days. got time for a few more calls as we ask our viewers what do you want to hear from the 2016 candidates on the issue of climate change. lois is waiting on the line for the democrats. good morning. >> good morning, thanks for taking my call. i think once again that it's grand old party of profits that looks at everything according to the bottom line. what's it going to cost me? whether it's air